God save the constitutional monarchy, because nothing would save us from a President
Viewing the spill as an endorsement for our current political system.
Let’s be clear from the start: I’m not a monarchist. I know that our head of state is named Elizabeth, and that relatives include Andrew, Charles, Diana and the Queen Mum, although I understand some of these are deceased.
I’m not pro-monarchy, I’m anti-president.
Considering the events of this week, it’s a good time to talk about this. Australians don’t elect their political leader, they vote for their local member of a political party, and the leader of the party with the most seats in government is named Prime Minister.
I like this system. I like the fact that our sovereign has no real power; that our head-of-state is largely ceremonial and has no direct control over most aspects of the way the country is run. I like the fact that if our Prime Minister starts to go a bit wonky the party can easily change to a new leader. In short, I like the fact that executive power does not reside in the hands of a single person, or even largely in the hands of a single person.
Almost unfailingly when I see a country with a president I see problems, either past, present or future. They frequently try and grab more power than they were intended to have. Hugo Chávez was elected president of Venezuela with very strong public support for some worthy goals of his, and proceeded to use and abuse his power in a way that belied his rhetoric. There are a lot more countries whose presidents brought a little tear to my heart over the last few years, but I’ll skip over the ones that are likely to bring retorts of "that’s a corrupt, third-world country, what do you expect?" and go straight for the big one.
America.
Remember when President Bush signed all those memos saying that the President is above the law? There hasn’t been a British king with that much power since the Magna Carta was signed in 1215. The legal arguments in those memos have since been reversed, but as far as I’m aware no punishment has been dished out and no mechanism put in place to stop a similar situation happening again.
I have no idea whether it was a good idea for Labor to change leaders, or whether it was "right" for Gillard to challenge Rudd, but I take heart in the fact that no-one in Australia has the sort of power that means they can act with impunity.
James Quintana Pearce holds a B. Tech in biotechnology from Macquarie University and a Masters of Journalism from the University of Technology, Sydney. He has been a professional online journalist for ZDNet Australia and a professional blogger for MocoNews. He currently lives in Mexico studying complex conjugations and doing Dad stuff.
SteveDS
July 1, 2010 at 4:48 am
Get your basic facts right
James, your arguement is based upon assumptions about the nature of an Australian president that are not even close to what was proposed.
Forget Howard’s referendum… it was designed to fail. He made all sorts of erronious and misleading statements to muddy the waters so as to help this to happen.
The model promoted by the Australian Republican Movement intended that the head of state (whatever he was to be called) have basically the same powers that the Governor General currently has. And in fact proposals including the method of appointment would have resulted in an even less political position than we currently have.
The main aim was to remove the link to the British Crown and the impacts it has particularly in perseptions both in Australia and elsewhere.
patrickcallioni
July 1, 2010 at 7:35 am
Your blog
Ecellent attempt at humour – this is an ironic piece, is it not??? It must be, because it cannot possibly be taken seriously. as the previous commentator makes plain. This is not the USA or France – translating the G-G’s role into a presidential form can be done easily and without any risk to our democratic institutions.
Think again, please.
Patrick
JEQP
July 14, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Ah well, if it’s some new make-up you’re looking for…
I’m sorry Steve, I didn’t realise the Australian Republican Movement had the final say on what form of republic Australia would move to. I was under the impression the citizens of Australia would have a role in deciding that, and most of the republicans I’ve met were eager for a president with executive powers. In regards to "Howard’s referendum", it’s worth noting that the proposal fit with the framework that is promoted by the Australian Republican Movement.
I’m not opposed to renaming the Governor General role to call it "President", I just don’t think it’s worth any of my time and effort. Cosmetic changes don’t interest me that much. I don’t think I’ll pay a lot of attention to a movement that reminds me of a teenager desperate to buy an expensive dress or new pair of shoes because they want to fit in with the latest fashion.
Federico Durkheim
July 8, 2010 at 10:48 am
The Complex of Super Dooper Australia and Our Natural Nobility
With more than 62 percent of the economy in US or
Kevin Rudd was "accused" of becoming a Hugo Chavez, when he tried to put in place a new mining tax to companies that experienced a 25 percent increase in profits in the last three months.
The Barons of mining orchestrated a “constitutional" cue d’état and gave us Julia Guilar, who, very quickly moved to kill the tax reducing it in 18 percentage points.
Meanwhile the Australian media tries to sell us the fairy tale of how wonderful it is to have a woman as a Prime Minister, especially if she protects the privilege of the rich oligarchy and dump the undesirable refugees in a distantEast Timor .
Now we can be utterly convinced that our system is better than those with a President.
As long as our PM follows the script of the powerful, everything will look very democratic indeed in Down Under.
SteveDS
July 16, 2010 at 6:15 am
Still Can’t Get the Facts Right
James, you’re right the Republican Movement don’t have the final say on the nature of a republic or the powers of a president in Australia if we have one. But I saw no serious support for any proposal that involved significantly more power. In fact the only notable mention of such a model came from the monarchists looking to scare monger.
Are you continuing this tactic?
JEQP
July 17, 2010 at 1:33 am
Still can’t see the point
I notice you ignored most of my points, but that’s OK. On this particular point, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. You seem to be getting all your ideas of "serious support" from self-appointed organisations seeking a republic, while I got most of mine by talking to people I met in that time — at work, uni, the pub, parties, whatever. Of those that I spoke to who wanted a republic the vast majority wanted a directly elected president. Did you stop to consider that maybe the referendum failed because those who want a republic don’t want that model? The model where the president is elected by a two-thirds majority of parliament and has mostly the powers of the current GG? The model which sounds suspiciously like the one which you seem to support?